The Celtic Myth Creates An Elite and Demonises England - "Celts", "Nations and Regions", "Welsh Law", The 'British' Nationality, The Barnett Formula & West Lothian Question...

The Houses of Parliament - home of the so-called 'UK' Parliament - which discriminates against its largest, most ethnically diverse country, England, in favour of white tribal myths and one-sided victimhood narratives in Scotland and Wales. The interests of fifty six million people versus the privileges of eight. No contest. The Parliamentary hogs from all corners of the UK will never initiate just change, and will continue to demonize England - for as long as they can. The situation is not sustainable in the long term as more and more people in England, of all ethnicities, are beginning to wake up to the facts.

Before anybody jumps to conclusions, I am an old style Socialist. Right Wing or Left Wing nowadays seem to be all trendy agendas and quite a lot of smoke and mirrors. Nobody in 'UK' politics cares that a poor person, just above the poverty line in Great Yarmouth or Leeds, and in fact everywhere in England, pays nearly £10.00 for a prescription, but millionaires in Scotland or Wales get them for free. This article is about fact, modernity and fairness for all.

One of the biggest causes of artificial divisions between the English, Scots and Welsh is the use of the word "Celt" or "Celtic". And 'Anglo' - as in 'Anglosphere'? Nope. There was never a language called Anglo. The language was/is English, Old, Middle, Modern - and the Anglo Saxons didn't arrive in England with the Old English language ready to unpack.

It has been proven by DNA studies that the English were and are not Anglo Saxons. The Anglo Saxons (who didn't call themselves that) married in to the existing population almost from the beginning and soon formed the early English, and the Scots and Welsh were and are not Celts.

That's all down to Welsh Nationalist Edward Lhuyd's jottings in 1707. He was writing about languages and 'Celtic' was a label he decided on.

It was never a UK bloodline, It's a myth. There may be linguistic influences (even that is uncertain - it's a label from 1707), but we are not separate ancient tribes - and certainly not ancient WHITE tribes of 'mongrel' 'Anglo Saxons' and 'pure' 'Celts'.

The fact that the the retrospectively-named 'Anglo Saxons' mixed with the existing population to form the early English is fascinating. So there is continuity in England, back to prehistoric times, and the original foundation of Englishness was an inclusive mixing of newcomers with people already here. This opens up interesting avenues to explore in the light of the DNA discoveries - the origins of the English language (the so-called Anglo Saxons did not arrive with the English language all already to unpack, and, logically, it must have evolved as a fusion with the existing population) and culture (the newcomers could not have vanquished all pre-existing culture), for instance. But the timidity of historians and the bristling hostility to anything which questions the entrenched beliefs of the so-called 'Celtic Nations' prohibits this.

The so-called Celts have become another group oppressed and abused by the awful English in centuries past.

Many 'academics' write selective studies to underpin the English=Evil narrative. They are highly selective with their material, and are easily funded, as the English=Evil narrative is popular. It sells.

The term 'Celtic' is often used in a racist sense by some Welsh, Scots and even Cornish (bandwagon-jumpers) writers and campaigners to imply a sense of belonging to this island far more than the people of England - or, in the case of Cornwall, the rest of England.

So, why do so many English bloggers and web site owners seem so happy to perpetuate the myth?

Were we once Romano-British? Nonsensical phrase - the Romans left hardly any genetic footprint. They occupied and ruled. An impact on culture and landscape? Most certainly! But not enough genes to have created a 'Romano-British' ethnicity. Are we or our language 'Germanic'? A term coined in relatively recent times. Rather an odd classification when viewed with modern DNA evidence. And 'Germanic' does not mean 'German' by the way. Celts? DNA evidence uncovers the truth, and we now have an exciting chance to view our real history, free of the likes of the Venerable Bede and Edward Lhuyd angles. 

But no, we musn't upset the ridiculous 'Celtic' narratives of a tiny minority outside of England.

On another matter, the sins of Empire... Scotland had already bankrupted itself on a colonial venture (Darien) before union with England, and was disproportionately active in the British Empire. Ireland was partitioned by a Welsh Prime Minister with fervent backing from Scots Protestant MPs.

In the case of Darien, some very vocal Scots (of course) try to blame England (as always). But, let's face it - the whole thing was poorly planned and reckless. Scotland cannot keep blaming England for its own mistakes. And England then paid Scotland's debts, and Scotland went on to make a mint of money in the British Empire, being, as previously mentioned, disproportionately active and far from a helpless minion.

The Scottish Clearances? Scots elites, not the English, did that - and Scotland's hugely disproportionate showing in the British Empire proves it wasn't some meek, 'oppressed' minion of England.

Did you know that the Poll Tax was the brainchild of a Scotsman called Douglas Mason? Well, it was! And that it was Scottish Secretary of State, who pushed for Scotland to have it a year ahead of England and Wales? Well, he did!

And Wales - an 'indigenousness' ancient nation, pre-dating all? Nope. Firstly, way, way back in the mists of history, long before England, Scotland and Wales, the Beaker People replaced around 90% of the existing Neolithic population on this island. And they didn't originate from the Welsh valleys. They came from overseas. And Wales was not a unified country even much later: it was factions, fighting and disputing each other, different kingdoms.

Welsh? An 'insular' language? Double standards there. Obviously, the island was absorbing newcomers over thousands of years. English was formed in England with clear influences from elsewhere, but that's not 'insular'? Not according to Welsh Nationalist and huge Celtic myth microphone John Rhys.

'Brittonic'? More Welsh-influenced nonsense from John Rhys, a modern word, meant to infer longer tenure on this island for a romanticised 'Celtic' elite.

Welsh Law? An ancient, egalitarian system? Pure poppycock. It's a romanticised notion from much later, designed to help Wales keep its moral superiority stance - and taking English money. 

Wales was factions, different kingdoms - and they were always squabbling and fighting. Rather like many other places. A lot of the "Welsh Law" thing is based on bits and bobs of writings from the 13th Century, apparently some of it culled from centuries earlier (no proof), and romanticised and retrofitted as something it wasn't in more recent years.

English Law and English Common Law are historical facts, well recorded. Actual history.

Do we say England was lovely? Of course not. But we're rebalancing the scales here. Selective rewritings of history to support preening and higher funding for a fiction are not acceptable.

Let's look further at Wales. Let's imagine it hadn't been incorporated into the Kingdom of England. Well, an alternative scenario might be interesting to look at. Let's say England had erected a wall between itself and this much smaller country. It will almost certainly have been invaded and there would be no Welsh identity today. No propping up its finances with Barnett largesse. Goodness knows what it would have been like today, but it would not contain people like Rhodri Morgan, proudly saying, 'We've made the English jealous!' as he abolished prescription charges for even millionaires - on English Barnett Formula largesse.

It may have been much nicer financially for everybody in England if Wales had been absorbed and flooded by people from a nation far away.

At least we wouldn't have all this current twisted, elitist nonsense.

And let's not forget that Wales voted for Brexit. 

On the subject of inclusivity, let's not forget that immigration to England is far higher than to Scotland and Wales (even proportionally) and that the white Celtic myths and victimhood narratives of Scotland and Wales do not bear putting under any objective microscope.

And yet they get copious amounts of cream from the current system.

And the Scots and Welsh may fancy themselves as 'non-racist', with their 'New Scot' bunk and so on, but their silence on millionaires in their countries getting free prescriptions, while poor people scrimp to pay nearly ten quid per item in England, and their UK MP's 'right' to influence the affairs of that far more ethnically diverse country next door speak volumes.

We are supposed to be 'the UK'. Do you ever hear the Scottish and Welsh people or politicians ever speaking against the effects of the Barnett Formula and West Lothian Question on the neighbouring, far more ethnically diverse, UK folk in England?

Once Scot Tony Blair began fanning the flames of Scots and Welsh nationalism in the late 1990s, he began a course of division and elitism, based on myths and racism.

Labour politician Jack Straw said the most awful and untrue things about England in a BBC interview at the time, simply echoing Scots and Welsh bile, all very one-sided, and it was strange that a politician should actually demonize the country he was elected in, and paid to represent, in such a way. 

Don't turn to the Tories for any different. Although they don't tend to indulge in Jack Straw style anti-England rants, they worship the Union, and England as an undifferentiated lump suits them fine.

It's Scotland's Oil! No, it's not. It's UK. When you look back, Scotland has enjoyed much largesse and had its voice tremendously amplified by the union with England, via the Darien bail-out, its access to English trading markets, and its disproportionate activity in the British Empire. On top of that, we heap the Barnett Formula, and another financial formula favouring Scotland before that. The notion that 'it's Scotland's oil' implies that what's Scotland's is Scotland's, and what's England's is also Scotland's.

The Barnett Formula, declared unfair to the poor of England by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett, is still in force (and remember the Scots had a different formula favouring them before that), asymmetric national devolution has created the West Lothian Question in which non-representative MPs vote on English legislation, and all of this discriminates against the UK's largest and most ethnically diverse (even proportionally) country, England.

If you live in England, you have to accept that some of 'your' English legislation is decided by MPs who do not represent you, and you have no power to elect or otherwise. It is happening - just check Hansard.

The Barnett Formula provides funding on a NATIONAL basis for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, above the English funding. It does not apply to anybody living in England. If somebody ever tries to bamboozle you by talking about spending in English 'regions' take no notice. Money spent in England and contributed by English taxpayers is not the issue. Extra largesse for UK countries outside England, affording luxuries like free prescriptions for millionaires, is.

And poorer areas are not just confined to the North of England, despite the UK Government's deceitful 'regions' carve up attempts. Three of the poorest streets in England were discovered to be in the so-called 'affluent' East of England! And there are areas across the whole of England that are poorer than the Scottish average.

Every poor person (in fact every person) in England suffers the Barnett disparities. The formula, the higher block grants, is only meted out to the so-called 'nations'.

So, backing up ancient white divisive myths is a priority when it comes to a minority (eight million - the combined populations of Scotland and Wales), is it, UK Parliament?

Wikipedia is a closed shop of apparently Left Wing people. Modern Left Wing is not Left Wing at all, of course. If the state of the affairs we have in the so-called UK was occurring in any other nation, the screams and howls of protest  would resound across the relevant 'Talk' pages on Wikipedia and the injustices addressed on its 'encyclopedia' pages. But everything is played down when it comes down to England, and Wikipedia does its utmost to uphold the white Celtic myth and the 'historic victimhood' narratives of Scotland and Wales. It's an obsession there, and 'Talk' pages and English history articles are loaded with nonsense about 'Anglo Saxons' (who never called themselves that) rather than 'the English'.

Anti-English bile is present in places like Canada, Australia and America - eager to find fake roots (via the Celtic myth) and eagerly buying anti-English hate (England has long been a convenient scapegoat as nobody in government speaks for it), in some cases from recent forebears, in others from the myths and nonsense emanating from Scotland and Wales which have spread out there via the fake 'Celtic diaspora'.

The Mel Gibson film Braveheart is a complete work of anti-English fiction.

The bile from minorities in Scotland and Wales also creates tensions in England itself. I have heard several new arrivals in England on my everyday round who have read the bile and believe England is evil and was the sole driver of any past wrongs. 

This is not the truth, and not the way the UK Government should be dealing with things. Of course, England is demonised, and even mention of the name discouraged. There are no attempts to establish an inclusive, civic English identity.

Ironically, it was an English politician called William Wilberforce who led the fight to abolish the British slave trade from the late 1700s onwards.

The UK Parliament is no longer fit for purpose, and hasn't been for years. It tries to create further divisions in England with its attempts to carve the country up into artificial regions (solidly rejected by the North East, but the UK Government still persists), and its MPs are like pigs at a trough. There is poverty across England (ever been to Great Yarmouth?), yet millionaires get free prescriptions in Scotland and Wales, and the 'regions' of England are a recent UK Government invention, not based in history.

New Labour's Council for the Nations and Regions is absurd. The UK is the nation, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the countries making up that nation. Yet England is being carved up, while its residents pay into the Barnett pot that fans the nationalist 'we are so progressive' notions in Scotland and Wales, like free prescriptions, because of the 'regions' (England, actually, defined by its national borders) being forced to pay and submit to the inequities of the Barnett Formula.

And we know why.

The UK Parliament is completely scurrilous, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Fairness for England would rock their cosy gravy train to its very core.

It's the same with the BBC. Furiously 'politically correct', this organisation is a piece of broken apparatus just like the UK Parliament. It bolsters up fake white Celtic myths and one-sided victimhood narratives in Scotland and Wales, blames England for everything, and backs plans to dismember it.

The British nationality? Dates back only a few centuries, the union with Scotland, and is tied to the British Empire. 'British values'? Are we talking colonization here?

The largest and most ethnically diverse UK country, England, gets horribly discriminated against by the UK Parliament, and the BBC backs it. Flying an England flag in England? Aren't you a dubious individual? BBC 'journalists' turn out copious amounts of anti-English bile and historic white myths for Scotland and Wales, and nobody bats an eyelid. We dropped the licence fee many years ago and will never sponsor its outdated bigotry again.

The only ethical way forward is a complete reorganisation of 'UK' politics, with a domestic English Parliament and funding provided according to areas' needs, not ancient white myths and bristling, jingoistic, attitudes from a tiny minority in Scotland and Wales.

We're either a UK or we're not.

If a new UK which cares for ALL its countries as countries, is non-racist and inclusive and serves everybody equally is unobtainable, then the UK must go

Because it IS NOT a united kingdom at all.

The Racist Element

I had an e-mail today asking if I thought there was a racist element at work regarding the current situation.

I think there is - but it's one of a number of things working against the people of England in the devolution game.

A few thoughts of mine...

1) The "racist" element...

England is a cosmopolitan country with a very long history. Since the Act of Union with Scotland, England has become absorbed into the bulk of the UK in a way that Scotland and Wales haven't.

For some reason, all the baggage of the old British Empire has been laid at England's door - despite the fact that it was actually a venture of England, Scotland, Wales and the whole of Ireland. And the Scots were disproportionately active in the running of the Empire. The trouble is that the other UK nations have heaped the blame on to England. And the poison has spread abroad.

Ridiculous.

The Empire was a BRITISH venture, in very different times, now judged by many to have been a "very bad thing". Fine. But it's gone. We can only learn the lessons from it, and scapegoating England, with the other nations smugly climbing into their pulpits to denounce us for something they were EQUALLY guilty of, is not on.

2) Celts and Anglo Saxons.

We believed that the traditional cultures of England, Scotland and Wales were largely based on traditions handed down from the Celts and Anglo Saxons. But that's been debunked by DNA studies. The Anglo Saxons (who didn't call themselves that) were a minority who married into the existing population to form the early English. Very inclusive, eh? And the Celts? No Celtic fringe, the whole thing seems to date from 1707 when Welsh Nationalist Edward Lhuyd tried to bind together certain languages linguistically and called them 'Celtic'. So, it sticks in my crop a little when some Scots, Welsh, Irish and "Cornish" folk refer to themselves as "Celts" and their cultures as 'Celtic'. There is a similar, but much smaller problem proportionally, with some English people proclaiming themselves "Anglo Saxon". Surely English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh are nationalities - not proclamations of pure bloodlines?!

Surely you don't have to be WHITE to be English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh?

In the case of the English, people proclaiming themselves "Anglo Saxon" are usually smacked on the snout with TV programmes like "100% English". But the Scots, Welsh and Irish are allowed to describe themselves as "Celts" and nobody says a word. Stinking double standards.

I sometimes get the impression that the people of England are treated as an "impure rabble" by this UK Government - and that is why we have health apartheid, the West Lothian Question etc - and as soon as anybody mentions England or Englishness the Government screeches "RACIST!!" Very odd. But UK PLC and the likes of Gordon Brown feathering his own country's nest must come first.

When Mr Brown rambles on about his plans for "Britain" he's usually talking about England by the way. He has very little authority over domestic policy in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. His own constituents up in Scotland are largely unaffected by his actions. And he isn't democratically accountable to the people of the country he does rule. That's right, England.

Brown's in a flap, he's forcing public buildings in England to fly the Union Flag (they fly their own flags in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) purely for his own ends. He's not out to foster a sense of solidarity in England. Far from it. Divide and rule, that's his game. He's ramming the Union Flag down your throat because he's terrified you may realise what's going on in devolution (for some) Britain.

'Scotland is a proud, historic nation,' said Scotsman Tony Blair when beginning the asymmetric national devolution project. But not without skeletons and historical revisionism in its closet. So, what was England? Chopped liver, eh, Tony?

This leads us neatly to regional assemblies or 'English regions'? These are basically a recently devised way of dissolving England into easily-ruled, tinpot regions. The North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% NO to regionalisation. But it still continues apace. Non-elected, corrupt, money sapping bodies, taking powers from your elected local councils.

3) Who can be English?

English is a nationality and all citizens of England are entitled to be English. England is a country with traditions stretching back centuries and these should not be suppressed as the UK Government is always attempting to do. English culture, like St George's Day, is supposed to be "non-inclusive". Rubbish. That's just the Government trying to brainwash people. The culture of England is as inclusive as its politicians want it to be. Nobody moving here imagines that they are moving to a country with no history or traditions. It is a cynical ploy by the Government to divide and rule when the screeches of "RACIST!" are heard. I live in an ethnically mixed area, and I can honestly say that the only people I have heard debunking English traditions are white, chattering class, Nu Labour supporting idiots.

And remember whilst you are at it that Nu Labour is NOT Old Labour. Back in the 1980s, I was vehemently anti-Thatcher, a confirmed Socialist. But Nu Labour is NOT a Socialist party. The damage done to the NHS, social care and education in England under Nu Labour would have had us fainting with disbelief back in the 1980s!

And the writers of this blog are all care workers and nurses. We speak from experience. Not Okay when Thatcher tried it, but nowadays people take the high moral ground for voting for Nu Labour, who have done a damned sight worst.

Hypocrites.

To return to "Who Can Be English", I believe that the establishment of an English civic national identity is highly important. Scots and Welsh versions are already being worked on by their national executives. But remember Scotland and Wales have far lower levels of immigration, even proportionally, than England. England needs it much more, and yet the UK Government frequently 'others' England and Englishness.

One of the worst developments of recent years is the rise of the odious BNP. This is happening as that party makes hay with the government's and main opposition parties' skewed and unfair policies. It must be stopped. And its flag is the union flag, and sometimes the flags of each so-called 'UK' nation.

So much more I could write...

But remember that it cannot be right that millionaires in Wales don't pay prescription fees, whilst people scrimp and save for them in England. Without the Barnett Formula, deemed unfair to poor people across England by its late creator, Lord Joel Barnett, Wales couldn't do that. And Rhodri Morgan saying, 'We've made the English jealous!!' Yes, with English taxpayers' money.

It cannot be right that public services and the NHS are more highly funded in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, via subsidies from England.

It cannot be right that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland.

It cannot be right that unaccountable MPs, including our PM, force legislation onto England that will not affect their own constituents, via the West Lothian Question.

It is not only the BNP that is racist. UK politics is heavy with it, all levelled against the people of England.

We do not live in a democracy.

If, after this, you believe that England is getting what it deserves, that it is an evil, corrupt country which has dominated the UK for far too long, then take a closer look at history. Once again, you will see that England is all too often scapegoated for the sins of Britain.

For instance, did you know that Ireland was partitioned under PM David Lloyd George, a Welshman, with avid backing from Scots Protestant MPs?

Blame for the past must be shared.

And England must be allowed parity with the other UK nations - or the so-called Union must end.

By the way, I'm very happy to proclaim myself English and I'm of English/Scots parentage, with a hefty dash of German not far back. But I was born in ENGLAND, as was my mother.

Take a little time to think things over. Stop streaming, turn off that podcast. Politicians are getting away with murder whilst the electorate lounges around.

And what are English MPs doing whilst all this is happening, you may ask? Most are riding the gravy train. Because they are never called to account for England.

'Britain! Britain! Britain!' Yep, the union of Empire. Weird, eh?

Because politically England does not exist.

The Highly Inclusive 'Anglo Saxons' and 'Ancient Britons' of England & The Highly Exclusive 'Scots' of Scotland...

'One Scotland' - but you have to be a Scot - not British, or English, or Bulgarian or...

I remember at school in the 1970s being told by my history teacher that the Anglo Saxons invaded what is now England, chased out the Ancient Brits, and took it for themselves. All the Ancient Brits (a retrospective naming - they didn't call themselves that - they were not a unified nation) ran off to Scotland and Wales.

'But how were they driven out?' I frowned. 'There was no technology to practise warfare on that scale - or genocide. The Anglo Saxons' boats would have been pretty small. They were not arriving here in their thousands, wave upon wave, all at the same time.'

My history teacher sighed. 'Well, that's what the historians say...' he said. And that was it.

Of course, I wasn't satisfied. Were historians all asses? I wondered.

As it happened, some historians shared my logic, even back then...

Flip forward to the 21st Century, and DNA evidence proves that the Ancient Brits didn't decamp in any large numbers at all. They actually married Anglo Saxons, and remained by far the majority DNA provider (Anglo Saxons markers in traditional English bloodlines are 10 to 40% - depending on the part of England). The Anglo Saxons were a minority. The mix of Ancient Brits, Angles and Saxons produced part of the rich brew that was the early English - and is the basis for England, the country.

Now, if the Anglo Saxons ruled the Ancient Brits with rods of iron and imposed their culture on them, why were they marrying them within a century? The arrival of the Anglo Saxons marked a great sea change here, but they would not have eradicated all other forms of culture already existing.

This throws up many interesting questions about the origins of English culture, which historians will be slow to grasp (don't rattle their settled view/offend any 'Celtic' sensibilities) but will, no doubt become a subject of more and more interest.

But the 'Celtic' thing has only been in motion since the 1700s and DNA studies show it to be a fallacy - an invention. 

It's the fusion of the Ancient Brits and the Anglo Saxons which formed the original English. And since them, the inclusive nature of the nation has seen many other people of different origins joining the 'family'.

The 'Celtic' cross is NOT a 'Celtic' Cross. It is an ancient British cross which has been appropriated by various racist/nationalist groups in Wales, Cornwall and Scotland. These countries/regions were never even remotely related to any 'Celtic' concept before the 1700s. These racist/nationalist groups have been trying to appropriate a lot of the traditional folklore and ancient artefacts of this island to feed their 'White Celtic' myth. None of it is true. It is not healthy. And it is not ON.

Scots Nats and Celtic myth followers are constantly showing their insecurity, insularity and racism by trying to rewrite history.

But it doesn't work.

They really just show themselves up.

Wikipedia's pages on these 'Celtic nations', and things relating to them, are becoming embarrassing to read. Works of complete fiction.

For instance, an 'article' on 'Scottish' inventions, note not British, includes the caveat that it covers all inventions invented in Scotland, whatever the origins of the inventor, even if they're 'non-Scot'  (sorry, if I invent something in Scotland it is my invention, not the country's, and I will have the patent), and all inventions of those of any 'Scottish descent ' - regardless of whatever else they are descended from - elsewhere in the world. So, they have it both ways. Be Russian and invent in Scotland and it's a 'Scottish invention', and have a Scottish great-grandfather and invent in Russia and it's a 'Scottish invention'. Now, let's say you are of English/Welsh descent but born in Scotland. That's a 'Scottish invention'. That is not inclusive. It is appropriating for fake glory.

It's all highly creepy and yet, at the same time, hilarious.

The 'Celtic' Cross has recently appeared in Stormfront literature.

Well, it's Ancient British, it belongs to anybody here to study and research, and its history does not belong to a couple of tiny groups of elitists - Scots and Welsh nationalists/White Celtic myth adherents - who have a severe chip on their shoulders - and a horribly inaccurate and exclusive view of our history.

CEP: Promoting England's Farming Economy

CEP Organiser for the East Riding of Yorkshire, Della Petch, has written to Hilary Benn, Minister at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggesting that leading supermarkets could encourage shoppers to buy English produce by using a 'bonus points' system similar to the one already operated successfully by retailers in Ireland promoting local products. Since the 1998 Devolution legislation the DEFRA Minister’s responsibilities are for England only.

Shoppers in Irish supermarkets are alerted to local produce by shamrock symbols on supermarket shelves, which then also appear on till receipts. These products can often earn bonus points through supermarket loyalty schemes. Della Petch’s suggestion is that English produce could be similarly 'flagged up' on till receipts with a small English flag, which could also earn bonus points where loyalty schemes exist.

She has now written to Cabinet Member Hilary Benn to ask him to raise the idea with England’s major retailers. The UK Government has already established working relations with the major supermarkets to promote environmentally friendly practices such as reducing carrier bag use.

Commenting Della said:

"Earning bonus points for buying local could be an excellent way to boost England’s economy and cut down on unnecessary food-miles this winter.

"There are already a number of labelling initiatives run by the supermarkets and producer groups, and introducing a further incentive to buy local could be a shot in the arm for England’s farmers.

"Just like the shamrock in Ireland, the English flag on the shelves and then on the till receipt would help to emphasise how easy and important it is to buy decent local produce, and reward shoppers in the process.

"I have written to the Cabinet Secretary asking him to look at the idea in more detail, and to discuss it at his next meeting with the major supermarkets.

"We need to make full use of England’s magnificent larder if we are to promote healthy eating, reduce pollution from transporting food, and boost the economy during the current downturn.

"A simple scheme like this could make all the difference."

Contacts:

Della Petch, email: dg.petch@btinternet.com

Michael Knowles, email: michael-knowles@tiscali.co.uk Tel: 01260 271139

Planning Wars - It's ENGLAND not BRITAIN Which Is Under Threat!

Waking Hereward reports on yet another load of media nonsense, in which devolution does not exist, in which England, the only country subjected to New Labour's undemocratic new planning laws is referred to as BRITAIN. Smoke and mirrors? Not 'arf!!

Here's Waking Hereward on January 7:

Last night's ITV's Planning Wars programme concerned itself with the imminent concreting over 'of Britain'. It majored on new must-have runways running straight through someone's front room, mega huge warehouses the size of Shropshire and 3 million new houses.

As per usual with such productions, they sanitised the info. England, the real target of this concretia was sort of buried and forgotten - much like the average English citizens democratic rights. According to the Gravelly-Voiced narrator, it was 'Britain' which was bracing itself for the flop of wet concrete on a verdant green belted landscape. It was Britain which was about to be trowelled into oblivion. It was 'Britain' which was about to suffer from the obscene new planning laws....

Interestingly, "Waking H" includes the following fact:

'Films of Record' were the producers of the programme. That's the outfit run by Roger Graef - the guy who likes to big up his factually accurate credentials. What a pity that instead of telling it as it is, his production company elected to follow the usual new Labour snail-trail of fudge, inaccuracy and lies.

Flipping typical when it comes to media types backing up New Labour's corruption of democracy for the citizens of England.

Read it all here.

Derek Wyatt - Labour MP Calls For An English Parliament...

Sorry I've been so slow with this story, it's plenty covered elsewhere, but I think the word should be spread as far as possible! Derek Wyatt, MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, has joined the chorus calling for equality for England within the UK. Excellent!

This debate has a simple theme. My constituents are living in a half-finished house that costs them money, and they are beginning to resent it. The half-finished house in our country—the United Kingdom—has, like so many historic houses, grown up over the centuries without a master plan and according to the needs or whims of successive owners. Nearly 90 years ago, after a long and bitter dispute, we gave the neighbouring property to its sitting tenants—although some preferred to go on living with us. We spent the next 70 years or so trying to improve our house to make it a better place in which to live and trying to protect it from outside attack. We made no changes to the structure of the house and all the rooms and facilities were shared among all the residents.

However, in the past 10 years, there has been some major remodelling of the property. We converted the upstairs into a separate flat for the Scots and created another flat with inferior facilities in the west wing for the Welsh. We then persuaded the Northern Irish to live in another flat in the orangery—although many of them wanted to live with their neighbours next door. All that remodelling failed to create any special space for the English. They went on living in the property, but the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish were still free to walk in and help themselves to the fridge and the drinks cabinet. They could even make rules for the English that they themselves did not have to follow. Meanwhile, the English went on paying most of the household bills.

More and more of the English, including many of my constituents, are finding that an uncomfortable way to live. They put up with it when there was plenty of money coming into the house, but now that money is scarcer and outgoings are rising, they are beginning to question it. I propose some restructuring of the property so that we can all live in the way that we want to without imposing on one another. I am also calling for a fair and transparent system of meeting the household bills. That will entail replacing the Barnett formula, which, as we know, was intended to be a temporary expedient that would last six months. However, the formula still regulates the financial relationships between the separate devolved entities of the United Kingdom. Our household settles its accounts through arrangements that were set up in the 1970s for reasons that no one can remember and with results that no one can understand.

Read the whole speech here.

The Neil Harding Thread - A Pearl Of Wisdom!

David, from Britologywatch, sent the comment below to the Neil Harding thread. It seemed far too interesting to be left there!

Not the least of the ironies of Neil Harding's comments is that, if being 'mongrel' (or even hybrid), in the way he suggests that the English are, disqualifies a people from being a proper nation and having their own parliament, then doesn't this disqualify Britain as a nation and call into question the legitimacy of its parliament? Sounds like the only solution would be to let the peoples (hybrid, remember) of Britain decide democratically what parliament or parliaments they would like; and as Britain is not a nation, I'm sure they'd reject the current set up!

Neil Harding

Thanks to Neil Harding for e-mailing us regarding his racist comments about "mongrel" England. Below, Mr Harding withdraws some of his comments, perhaps we, and all nations, are "hybrid"?

We get the usual train of thought - an English parliament would break up the gravy train, sorry, we mean "UK", etc.

Below are Mr Harding's thoughts, followed up with a few of ours.

'Mongrel' is a very emotive word with sometimes negative racial connotations but I was not using it in that context at all - just to mean 'mixed origins' - which of course (as you suggest) all nations are. Perhaps in hindsight I should have used the term 'hybrid'.

An English Parliament poses many problems - a federal UK system with one parliament having 85% of the population would just not last very long - it would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK. Maybe that is what some people want, but not the majority I imagine. I could live with an EP elected by PR (but it would still signal the end of the UK), but one where 35% of the English vote would give a majority to one party is as unjustifiable as Labour currently having a majority on 35% of the UK vote. Whichever party dominated, either the Tory South or Labour North would be alienated just as socialist voting Scotland, Wales and London were alienated by Tory UK rule and led successfully to their own devolved governance. How much better to have regional assemblies - give them the same powers as Scotland and this just as easily solves the west lothian question. What is the problem with this?

We reply...

Firstly, Mr Harding, the UK Government has never suggested regionalising England to the extent that each region has parliaments with the same powers as Scotland.

The regions on offer are tinpot talking shops, designed to muddy the waters and stop the English from asking questions about devolution. "You ARE a region - not a nation! You HAVE devolution!" is the UK Government's stock argument for these areas of England. But nobody voted for these regional bodies. And the North East, the only area allowed a referendum, voted 78% AGAINST!

Would the type of devolution you suggest, each English region on a par with Scotland, really work? All these NATIONS with different health, education transport policies, etc? Because that is what it would take to bring the so-called English regions onto a par with Scotland. Each would have to have its own fully fledged, national parliament. Enormously expensive. Rather nonsensical. England would cease to exist, of course, which would please you no doubt, but the UK would be a very odd and fragmented place indeed.

No, the only route forward is for the UK Government to give the people of England all the facts and let them decide if they would like a national parliament via a referendum. This is what happened with Scotland.

Useless to go on about the Scots being tired of "Tory" governments foisted on them by England. The old unitary system sometimes worked against England, too. It was flawed but did not involve health apartheid, etc.

As for the internal governance of England, first we need a national parliament, then other decisions should be made. If you are seriously suggesting to us that Gordon Brown, a non-accountable MP for a constituency in Scotland, should have the main say over the internal governance of England, then we must reply that we do not think you understand what democratic rule is!

We were old Labour supporters, Mr Harding, and now we support no party. We are care workers and we see what the UK Government is doing to care services and the NHS in England via the likes of the odious "Supporting People" organisation. Did you know that care and NHS workers in England are now gagged as part of their contracts so that they cannot speak out?

Nope, England needs a parliament. It may not suit you, or other "UK rump" politicians riding the gravy train, but England needs national recognition within the UK. It's needed it ever since Scotland and Wales were awarded it. And now Northern Ireland is following suit.

The UK is a union of nations. The UK Government should serve those nations, not seek to abolish one of them just because it doesn't suit!

New Labour is not a Socialist party. That's nonsense. We see what's happening on the ground in health and social care, we know that people die in England for want of medication available on the NHS in Scotland, we know that people in England scrimp and save for prescriptions free to millionaires in Wales.

England needs its freedom to decide its own future. The UK needn't break up. But if it is the will of the people, so be it.

Personally, we think a federal system could work very well, if it is the will of the people.

UK politicians are all about suppressing the will of the people of England, to preserve a status quo that is no longer fit for purpose.

But please don't tell us that you are a Socialist. Your party's uncaring attitude, skewed devolution settlements and your own rantings against England and the English prove that both you and your party are very far from being Socialist.

CHRIS ABBOTT, DREW & FIONA

Unlock Democracy? As Far As England Is Concerned, Let's Keep It Locked, Says Peter Facey

"Are you a Celtic nationalist? Ooh, may I lick your bottom? You're English? Well, you can get stuffed, you mongrel!"

Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy:

I don’t see why central government, whether UK or English, should control issues that are local or regional in nature.

Basically, Mr Facey sees regionalisation of England at the behest of Scots and Welsh MPs as something worthy of prioritising. A representative national parliament for England? No, not important.

But surely democracy is about representation, surely a representative government should be overseeing England's future internal governance? Not important, says the surprisingly undemocratic Mr Facey.

However, in good old fascist "Our Kingdom" style, Mr Facey pauses to lick the arses of "pure Celtic" nationalists:

"I personally have never argued that a region like London or the North East is the same as Wales or Scotland, because they are part of a wider nation. With the exception of Cornwall none of the local identities in England are national in character..."

I personally have friends in Cornwall who view themselves as English and Cornwall as a county, Mr Facey. Don't their views count? Are you just concerned to get a perceived persecuted minority on your side, so that Mr So Called Pure-Celt of the Lizard will applaud you?

Cornwall needs a referendum to decide its future, as does the whole of England in fact.

Mr Facey is keen to see things are good locally. But how can they be when the decisions about how things are organised locally are out of our politicians' hands? When "our" politicians are never called to account for their actions as regards England anyway?

And what about health apartheid? The West Lothian Question? The Barnett Formula?

What motivates people like Peter Facey? What gives?

Unlock Democracy? Quite the reverse as far as England is concerned.

CEP Press Release: England Outraged By Scottish Attempt To Grab English Territory

The members of the Campaign for an English Parliament will resist with might and main the attempt being made by the Scottish Nationalist Party to grab Berwick on Tweed which has been part of England since the 13th century - over 700 years- and make it part of Scotland.

Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Grahame supported by fellow SNP members is lodging a vote in the Scottish Parliament in support of this land-grab.

Already the Scottish Parliament has claimed rights over all English rivers such as the River Till in Northumberland which flow into the River Tweed, even though the Tweed is the boundary river between the two nations of England and Scotland and belongs to neither. And the Scottish Parliament has been able to move southwards the boundary between England and Scotland which till devolution has always run along the very centre of the Solway Firth. To date the United Kingdom Government with its Scottish Prime Minister and Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer has done nothing to stop these successive land grabs.

"The Scots are stirring up a hornets' nest of real trouble within the United Kingdom with these policies. And we will take them on," stated Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the Campaign. "The people of England will not put up with any more of it. Already Wales has been given the English county of Monmouthshire and even a part of the city of Chester in what is the county of Cheshire. It is already intolerable that devolution for Scotland has granted it huge benefits denied to England such as free university education, free personal care for the elderly, free prescriptions, as much as £1500 more spent on each Scot per annum than on any person in England and access to cancer drugs not obtainable in England. What the Scots are doing is sowing the seeds of real anger and dissension within the Union. They are sowing the wind. If they try to grab Berwick, it will be the Union that will reap the whirlwind.'

Supporting People (Communities and Local Government)

The recent outrageous comments from Caroline Flint, UK Government Housing Minister responsible for housing in England only, has set us thinking. The most terrible things are happening to social housing across England. Take the vulnerable: all involved on this blog have worked in registered community homes for people with histories of mental illness and learning disabilities. In recent years, tenants of these homes were sold a downright lie by this government: become deregistered, leave the safety of being a Social Services monitored establishment, transfer to the auspices of a government agency called “Supporting People”, and you shall have more, lots more, financial input, including staffing, they were told.

These people are highly vulnerable and were basically told a whopping great lie.

Many community homes for people with histories of mental illness and learning disabilities are now falling into disrepair as maintainence budgets are slashed; staffing hours too have been cut - in some cases up to 50%, and vulnerable adults used to and IN NEED OF 24 hour staff support must now spend the night with no staff on the premises.

Supporting People covers its actions well, pretending to be interested in “encouraging independence”. All of us at WENAP have been involved in social care work since the early 1980s and that has always been the aim. But under Supporting People we find this “aim” is now a thin cover for savage cutbacks.

Staff are being forced to take on duties above and beyond their training, salary scale and job descriptions as social care agencies compete for tenders on a vicious open market where the cheapest bid wins - and to hell with standards.

And staff have it written into their contracts that any speaking out will face disciplinary action and dismissal.

And all this has happened not under Thatcher, not under Major, but under Blair and Brown.

As old Labour voters and care workers we are bloody angry.

Visit Supporting People - http://www.spkweb.org.uk/

We’re absolutely committed to exposing this corrupt UK government agency, which is wreaking havoc across England, for what it is. You may never have heard of it before, but now that you have please keep your eyes and your ears open. Do not believe the facade. If you have a relative or friend in a social care home provided by a housing society or local authority, please monitor standards. Question the staff and management closely about anything you are unhappy about. Encourage your friend/relative to speak up. Was 24 hour "sleep-in" cover previously provided by staff? Has it been cut or is it about to be? In your opinion, are the people in this home of the state of mind/physical ability to be left alone over night?

What about decoration/maintenance/cleaning standards/furnishings?

Many of the people living in these homes have been institutionalised for long periods of their lives and are unused to speaking up for themselves, and so this government, via Supporting People, is making hay.

Please join us in fighting to restore decent levels of care and support to those in need of it in community homes across England and bring about an end to Supporting People.

Shout loud about it. Ask questions. refuse to be misled. This is one of our anti-English UK Government's harbingers of evil which has so far managed to slip underneath the search beams of those seeking justice and parity for England in the modern day UK.

Let's change that.

Now.

Please.

Robert Hazell

Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit - habitual liar who has done great harm to the prospects of democratic rule for the people of England over a long period of time.

I'm picking Mr Hazell out for particular comment because he wandered into my sights this morning, via this BBC article, spouting the great lie, not for the first time, and I wished to let him know that we are looking. We are hearing. The electorate in England has awoken from its coma and the kind of manipulative nonsense he and his like have been spouting for years is now being noted and seen for what it is by large numbers of people beyond his priviliged clique.

From this morning's BBC online article:

The “closest to a complete answer” would be a separate English Parliament but no “heavyweight” politicians had come out in support of such a move and there was “no significant public demand for that,” he told MPs on Tuesday.”

“No significant public demand”? When last I looked there were polls showing sixty one to sixty seven per cent in favour of an English parliament! The BBC's own poll in January this year showed sixty one per cent (see it here).

What WOULD be “significant” in your view, Mr Hazell?

Who Can Be English And English Attitudes To Britain...

Writing in Comment is Free, Anthony Giddens has this to say:

We cannot rebuild Britain without confronting the “English question" - the fact that England, the largest nation, is now the only one without separate representation. The West Lothian question, of course, is an offshoot of that. Britain will not survive, let alone become more integrated, if we simply let such issues be. “Britain” is a product of internal and external colonialism, where England was the dominant nation. It will not survive either if “Britain” continues to be widely thought of (by the English) as the same as “England”. How can we strip “England” of its association with being white? Ethnic minorities living in England should be able to feel English as well as British. Such questions can’t be papered over by inventing a few ceremonials.

Good that somebody else has taken up the point that the current state of devolutionary affairs cannot continue, but let's look at the piece more closely:

“Britain” is a product of internal and external colonialism, where England was the dominant nation."

Well, as the largest nation perhaps England could be expected to dominate, but bear in mind that Wales was not a nation, but a principality, and that the Union with Scotland was agreed by elites from both camps, with apparently large numbers of "commoners" not being at all happy with the prospect in both countries.

'It will not survive either if “Britain” continues to be widely thought of (by the English) as the same as “England”. '

So long as it is known that this isn't usually down to arrogance. It's down to the fact that politicians and the media and the "great and the good" routinely substitute "Britain" for England and "British" for "English" at every opportunity, thus giving rise to the notion that England is Britain.

'How can we strip “England” of its association with being white? Ethnic minorities living in England should be able to feel English as well as British.'

For a start, the government could allow a civic English national identity, something the devolved bodies are working on in Scotland and Wales. And people could be encouraged. The black refuse operative told not to wear the Cross of St George as a bandana because it's "racist" and the person I heard on the radio on St George's Day a few years ago, a black Englishman, happily proclaiming the fact, and being told by a white, middle class English presenter that he wasn't English, he was British, everybody was British, are prime examples of just what is wrong in "this country" today.

I'm afraid the answers to Mr Giddens questions are alarmingly simple:

Develop an English civic national identity.

Allow England national representation on a par with Scotland in the UK.

Stop scapegoating England for all the perceived sins of Britain. Remember, the Scots were disproportionately involved in the old British Empire and a Welsh Prime Minister partitioned Ireland.

Apart from all this, I'm glad that Mr Giddens is another voice highlighting the English Question. It's just the inference that it's all somehow come about because we're "not very nice" I take issue with.

Hat tip to the CEP News Blog.

English Civil War - Rewritten As "British"...

I note that many historical resources around the Internet are referring to what we call the "English Civil War" as the "British Civil War". Surely, civil wars only take place within unified nations, and as Britain did not then exist as a nation, this terminology is inaccurate? I'm not saying that only England was involved in the unrest (I know for a fact that Scotland has its own terms for the era), but from England's perspective "English civil war" was a perfectly legitimate title for this time span. Why should it now be erased?

And what kind of National Archives nonsense is this?

Gallery 5: Why did Britain become a republic?

Aim

The primary focus here is on events from 1647-53 and the shock they caused in the kingdom. A secondary theme is that the execution of Charles and the setting up of the English republic was the result of the actions of a driven, minority group with a clear vision of the country they wanted to create. The existence and actions of these revolutionaries is sometimes overlooked.

Come on, dears, was it an English or British republic?

And then we have this:

Also, the “English” is a problem because it implies much more than “in England”. Even Conrad Russell, with his interest in the British problem, made the mistake of saying that before the entry of Scots and Irish units in 1643, the war was fought between Englishmen. Even before Mark Stoyle’s groundbreaking work in Soldiers and Strangers I was well aware that there were many non-English soldiers in the “English” armies. With his focus on the Welsh and Cornish, Stoyle has made the very concept of “England” look a lot more problematic than I used to think it was. It’s still useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, but perhaps not much more than that.

This brand of academic, England denying twaddle I cannot understand at all. Show me a "pure" Cornishman and I'll probably faint (these "Cornishmen" were not a distinct nationality anyway) and if England is only useful as an arbitrary geographical boundary, why not Scotland and Wales?

Answers please...

Prodicus: Is Britishness Merely A State Of Mind, Gordon?

Prodicus has been in touch with news of an interesting post over at his blog:

... can you think of a single case of our thought-masters approving the infliction on, oh, pick any country in the developing world, of what they themselves have deliberately done to England - and to a lesser extent, to Britain - which is to say, they have destroyed, decried and denied its identity and its legitimate culture and customs and sacrificed its 'emotional inheritance' and its people's right to self-determination to both an imperialist foreign government and a group of colonising settlers. NO. If England were a 'developing country', they would march on the very streets for the freedom of the English (and the rest of the British) people and against imperialist interference and oppression. But this, my friends, is England, so all the rules are reversed. They save their energies for Marxist-approved cases like Burma and Kosova. (Not Zimbabwe, note.)

We are living Through the Looking Glass.

Read the full post here.

Cornwall

Michael writes:

Cornwall has never, ever been a nation. Nor was Wales until devolution. So why is the British Nationalists In Wales map you feature entitled "our nations", and why do so many left-wing bloggers support devolution for Cornwall? Many Cornish nationalists I know are simply racists, who have been fed baloney about the English and hate people of other colours and creeds.

I suppose there is a sense of "restore our nationhood" in the Cornish nationalists' argument - and, of course, that's inaccurate. There is an element of misguidedness and racism too, and you are quite right, Wales was never a nation in the modern sense until the 1990s.

But I cannot negate the Cornish argument or right to independence. Not all nationalists are bigoted racists, and if Cornwall wants to go it alone then it should be allowed to. We should be living in a democracy. The only thing I will never agree with is Cornwall going it alone and having huge subsidies from the rest of England, which is pretty much what is happening with Scotland and, increasingly, with Wales.

The British Nationalists In Wales blog is an interesting one, and I know several left-wing bloggers who regard the notion of "Anglo Saxon" Englishness as racist but are quite happy to regard the Scots, Welsh, "Cornish" and Irish as "Celts", which is also a racist notion.

Much needs sorting. But I don't believe that anything will be unless the people speak up, start speaking to each other, and the elements of priggishness, bigotry and double standards are examined and debunked.

Tom Griffin On English Identity...

Tom Griffin points out a great truth...

English identity is relegated to a purely cultural status, because unlike Scottish or Welsh identity it has no [institutional] expression.

The cultural exclusivity of Englishness is then used, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, to justify the refusal to establish any specifically English political institutions.

The Pink Jack - Variation On An Imperialist Theme...

"The Pink Jack symbolises a new spirit we see in Britain today, one of positive integration, acceptance and inclusion." - cobblers.

Seems to me that the same bunch of left-wing, ignorant twits are running the gay scene as when I was on it in the 1980s. Only difference is, now they’re endorsing a variation on a flag which represents elitism, imperialism and downright discrimination in modern day Yookay.

I wish I could say I’m surprised. But those organising this kind of crap live in a time warp and haven’t the foggiest idea what they’re actually doing.

-

Before anybody tags me as a "1980s gay Tory" let me point out that I was a vehement socialist back then, a time when it still had meaning. The trouble is you get tossers in every walk of politics and they usually float to the top of the pile.

-

The people behind the "Pink Jack" outrage will, no doubt, be insufferably pleased with themselves.

-

Many other people, better-informed about Gordon Brown's "Britain", will be horrified.

-

Hat tip to Toque.

After The Elections - Who Cares About England?

When you're struggling to make ends meet and paying prescription charges in England, knowing that millionaires don't pay them in Wales...

When you're facing the fact that your children must pay university top-up fees in England - thanks to MPs from other "UK" nations...

When you're sick of health apartheid, the democratic deficit, the Barnett Formula and the Scottish Raj ruling England...

Doesn't it make you tired to read stuff like this - http://paullinford.blogspot.com/2007/05/ming-must-go-and-salmond-must-be.html from caring sharing Paul Linford ("After leaving Westminster in 2004 in search of a better quality of village life, I now live in glorious Derbyshire with my wife Gill and son George") who is still dreadfully concerned about the injustices wrought by Thatcherism on the disadvantaged in the 1980s, but apparently feels minimal concern for the injustices heaped upon the disadvantaged in England in the 21st Century.

Why are the Scots and the Union so BLOODY IMPORTANT?

UPDATE

The Times reports - another cancer drug approved for Scotland only - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1760242.ece

UPDATE 2

Sylv from Salford...

Mr Linford is pretty typical: pay lip service to the concept of an English Parliament occasionally (hedging your bets, just in case), scapegoat the 1980s as the cause of all modern evils, ignore the fact that New Labour has done things that would not have been DREAMT OF back then, and that the party now bears no resemblance to Old Labour, and think yourself a pretty swell guy/guyess.

It's the way things are.

And these times are not changing.

The BBC: Andrew Neil Slips In "Scotland's Oil"

I've had a very unhappy morning. My faith has been shaken in a BBC employee whom I regarded as a shining light in the Beeb's blackness of PC dross and EastEnders. This employee was political commentator Andrew Neil, a man with a mind (and tongue) like a razor. A man willing to cut through blather from MPs and leave them gasping. A man willing to speak up for England. A Scot in the public eye firmly out to defend the rights of the majority.

But today Gareth reports an interview on This Week during which the uniquely trusty one slipped badly. At the time, another squirming unfortunate was, deservedly, getting the Neil treatment...

Over to Gareth...

I can't remember who it was, some blathering old nag, Baroness Williams I think, telling everyone that the Scots didn't get substantially more public funding than the rest of the UK.

"Not true", interrupted Neil, "They, the Scots, get over 10%, 12 or 13 percent actually".

"Oh, well, there's not much point me talking if you are just going to interrupt me", she whined.
"Well there's not much point you talking if you can't get your facts straight is there?", said Neil.

"Well", she said, "Scotland contributes oil wealth to Britain and because of that they get the Barnett Formula".

And there we had it, beans spilled, an unspoken known truth at Westminster beamed live into our living rooms. Everyone in the studio seemed perfectly happy at this explanation, but I wasn't.

Read the rest of Gareth's post here -

http://www.toque.co.uk/blog/archives/2007/04/known_truths_at.php

So, Andrew Neil has slipped in the oil.

For the record, the Barnett Formula was actually introduced in the late 70s (supposedly for one year only) to pacify nationalists. It had nothing to do with oil and was actually to do with poverty levels. In recent years, Lord Joel Barnett, the Formula's creator, has declared it unfair to England and has stated that he is ashamed his name is associated with it.

Scotland does not own the North Sea oil. Quite a lot is in English waters and the maritime boundary was tweaked by the UK Government some years ago, without consulting the English, to give "the Scottish sector" more of the oil. Fine when we are a supposedly United Kingdom, all sharing the resources, but not so if Scotland declares independence. In that case, England will require that the boundary is corrected.

The "it's oor oil" thing has whined on for years. But it's not entirely true, not true at all whilst the United Kingdom exists, and there is absolutely no excuse for Andrew Neil letting this sickening justification for the unjustifiable go unchallenged.

Shame on you, Mr Neil.

Our previous post on the subject...

The SNP once again recycles the same tired argument about North Sea Oil and gas subsidising the rest of the UK. Conveniently, they fail to mention that the maritime border was moved heavily in Scotland’s favour a couple of decades ago and that a lot of “oor oil” is actually England’s oil gifted to Scotland by a British government desperate to pacify nationalists.

International convention says that a maritime border between two countries is an extension of the land border. The land border between England and Scotland points upwards on both the east and west coast. The maritime border used to follow this convention putting a large portion of North Sea oil and gas in English waters. Should Scotland ever achieve fiscal or full independence, it would be unacceptable for the maritime border to remain where it is now.

Moving the border was nothing more than a bribe. The English weren’t consulted and their permission was not sought to donate their natural resources to another country. A lot of the North Sea oil and gas rightfully belongs to England.

Stuart Parr

Read the rest here - http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2006/10/its-englands-oil.html

UPDATE...

Sylv from Salford

Scotland actually makes about four BILLION pounds MORE than the TOTAL oil revenue, be it English, Scottish or British, from the Barnett Formula. I worry that when it comes right down to it Andrew Neil will not speak up for truth. If I'm misjudging him, I apologise in advance. It's just that the bloke usually has a good grasp of the facts he's discussing and is not shy in presenting them.